Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 24/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

Electricity Act

Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question as to the validity of the Regulations framed by the CERC–Matter referred to larger bench–Electricity Act, 2003, Section 121–Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, Section 27–Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006.   

Jul 26, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1037 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 125 – Electricity Supply Act, 1948 – Section 43(A) – Determination of tariff for sale of electricity by the generating company to the Electricity Boards – Agreement between the parties was that interest on the sum of Rs. 53.90 crores was payable for the specified period 01.07.2003 to 31.12.2009 -Therefore, CLP’s claim that any amount was payable, for any period prior to 01.07.2003, was not tenable

May 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CLP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56 – Disconnection of supply – Disconnection of supply is special power given to the supplier in addition to the normal mode of recovery by instituting a suit – HELD Once that plea for instalment payment was accepted and agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated willingness to pay on the part of the company of the dues in a manner acceptable to the appellant Board – Such plea of the company was accepted after keeping the matter pending for a long time – High Court was right in giving its finding that the act of disconnection was arbitrary – Appeals dismissed. Decided on : 27-04-2020

Apr 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Levy of wheeling charges – Transmission licence – It was contended on behalf of HPCL that 110 kV HPCL line is a transmission line – The metering for HPCL is done at TPC-D sub-station which is admittedly a transmission asset – The CEA Regulations 2010, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Transmission Open Access) Regulations, 2016 and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 provide for demarcation between the transmission and distribution boundaries on the basis of voltage – The Tribunal erred in ignoring the said Regulations while holding that 2×110 kV lines are part of the distribution system HELD Tribunal judgement set aside, remitted for fresh adjudication.

Apr 3, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAI WARDHA POWER GENERATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Service

Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw